What do you see when you compare the different maps? How does the same classification scheme and number of classes effect your different data sets? Are the maps comparable? Yea or nay?
When I look at the maps, I see specified change. From the 1900-1910 population population change map to the 1910-1920, I see a world of change in the population increase. Most of the area in the 1900-1910 map is empty while the 1910-1920 map is practically full. The map truly reflect the change in all of the regions of the map. Most areas do not significantly change over time because most of the area changes together. There are some standouts and I recognize them immediately.
The same classification schemes affected the different data sets by providing a balance to the areas of growth. I chose 5 classes (the default) because this seems the most logical for presenting graduated colors. The colors (from yellow to dark blue) clearly show the information of the population change and where the population change is moving rapidly or being stagnant. The maps are similar and comparable since the classification shows major changes in the data. If I wanted to make clear more subtle changes in the data then I would increase the number of classes.
